hooper. >> i think charles sheehan, if you don't mind. >> thank you, barrie, thank you supervisors, charles sheehan. earlier the clerk has left you a slightly revised version of this ordinance with the couple of amendments and i just wanted to walk you through them and i don't think they're substantive. they're mainly about tightening language and bringing us more in alignment with the state's definition of renewable energy. you've got copies and i highlighted the amended section in yellow. the first amendment just make sure we pay our greenhouse gas free with renewable energy resources together because that is what we are referring to later and that's what these large buildings will be able to buy. and then what we refer to later, is a series of state codes to make sure that one, we're in alignment with our the state of california defines renewable energy and two, we're also in alignment with how the state of california deals with hetch hetchy power and our ability to satisfy our obligations with hetch hetchy power so we're just making it clear to these large commercial buildings that you

i do think it would be help wi will, charles sheehan is here with us, perhaps hear from him, as well. i just wanted to ask wayne our process from math level denial, to departmental approval. you know, we feel like, of all of the trees in the block, it's the most reasonable site for losing a tree. i've also heard what you said, there has been a just passion about setting precedent. it is certainly a concern of the appellant. i hear you, too. we do not want to open a pathway. it would be wonderful if we can do solar, e.v. and all of these amazing things without losing trees i think sometimes it's not going to be realistic to do that. just to try to beef up our reasons for approval. there will be times there is conflict and difficult decision. i just want to point that out. sometimes there is conflicts area i hear where the board is leaning on this area do you know we take that feedback seriously. >> i wouldn't say one commissioner views constitute a leaning. i do have a couple of questions. the permit says three trees will be planted as replace. there is on its brief says they will plan

. >> charles sheehan, san francisco department of environment. to your first question, the data input and the return that it gives you, i will.out to the appellant brief, where he also shows a similar response. essentially over 20 years, that same grass shows that is not sequestering any carbon. so, while my input was low, what he submitted it shows very low sequestration. we did do a secretary alternative analysis. >> before you move on, i'm looking out, there is a statement of appeal, there is a second case that says public works order 201448 on page two of the document. summary findings of sf requirement. is it because the trees are younger, older. why is one 2.6 and then six of them are 10,000. i'm not understanding that area attorney correct. the model input that we used, and we use the same model. there is different adaptations for the model, but we were using the same model. it's all about the input. the tree that we are removing is a red flowering tree. for whatever reason you put this into the model and you asked the model to return how